MacGyver

Does your local Ace not stock individual bits anymore? I know most used to.

My wife leans towards this position as well. And, she's got a masters from Peabody in early childhood special education. I think something that really is lacking in discussions like this sometimes is that raising/educating a child is a responsibility born by the parents first, the community second and the government when all else fails. So often, the first two are lacking, so can you really expect any school to pick up all the slack? We're so blessed as a family with a great community. Our church, our friends and even our neighbors are all great. But, at the end of the day, my children are my responsibility. We will probably choose a private school as my kids get older, but I'm fairly certain that our kids would do okay in public school. We're not depending on them to pick up our slack.

I had a colleague who was interviewing for some open developer positions earlier this year.   He had a kid who was out of college and in his 20's show up to the interview with mom in tow.  He almost cancelled the interview right there in the lobby, but was intrigued.  He said that in a thirty minute interview the kid tried to answer several questions, but his mom kept cutting him off.  He obviously didn't get the job - and though he didn't cite any particular reason - the mom threatened him with counsel.   How'd you like to be that kid's girlfriend coming home for Thanksgiving dinner?

I don't buy too many albums these days with the advent of Spotify and the like, but Dominican Sisters of Mary are going to get my $12.   Their Mater Eucharistae is well worth a listen even if like me, sacred music not your normal genre:   On Spotify:  Bogdanowicz, OP, Sir Joseph Andrew – Bogdanowicz: Holy Mary, Mother Of God   On YouTube:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=209u7A_MwD8

So, I know we've got several members that homeschool their kids, or have in the past.    I saw this blog post from a friend on Facebook and part of it stood out to me.   http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/10/23/we-are-going-to-home-school-our-kids-but-thats-only-because-we-hate-education/     Mind you, I wish we'd take this approach more often when discussing matters of politics.  I'm interested in opinions here.   Thoughts?    

I might add that not only are good tools worth it, but when you've dinged a top-shelf billet receiver, it's too late...

Yeah, I tend to agree with you.   Our old neighborhood had parents lined up every afternoon.  So much so that I felt like all the parents in cars were probably more of a problem than other cars.   The kids I see getting off the bus now don't have a parent in sight.   Being in my kids' school every morning, I do hear bus drivers talking about kids fighting at bus stops, goofing off and doing stuff that kids will do when parents aren't around.   I'll ask one of our bus drivers next week.

If there's a law, it's unenforced.   I take my oldest daughter to school, but once a week we pass an apartment complex where kids are waiting for the bus.  There are so many kids waiting, that two buses are required to pick them up.  There may be one parent out there waiting with them on a good day.   Mind you, I'm in Brentwood, but within our neighborhood parents waiting with kids is a rarity (and one I'm kind of thankful for).  Kids wait at the end of our street on their own.   It's kind of funny.  I take my first grader to school because I like to walk into her school and actually see what's going on and I figure she's only going to tolerate it for so long.  We live less than a mile from her school, but she's dying to ride the bus.

Here are links for each of the three bureaus.  Unfortunately the lobbyists have persuaded our lawmakers to make this way more difficult than it needs to be.  Right now you have to go to each of the three bureaus:   Experian - http://www.experian.com/consumer/security_freeze.html   Transunion - http://www.transunion.com/personal-credit/credit-disputes/credit-freezes.page - This is the bureau most commonly used to pull consumer reports right now   Equifax - https://www.freeze.equifax.com/Freeze/jsp/SFF_PersonalIDInfo.jsp   Also, if you have children, this is well worth doing for them as well.  Though in the case of a minor, you'll have to write the bureaus first to see if your child has a credit report before you can place a freeze.  With recent changes in the law, it's not uncommon for minors to have some form of credit report.  Criminals know this, and we see cases all the time where family members take advantage of their young family members' credit to finance their bad habits.   Here's some info on that through Experian that's applicable to all three bureaus.

As a forensic professional, our experience is that credit monitoring is non-responsive to the problem of identity theft.  It's kind of like a smoke alarm.  It's not going to prevent anything.  If it goes off, you're on fire.   Unfortunately, it's become sort of the defacto "give me something" response to data breaches.  There are two contributors to this.  One, our government sort of set the standard of giving it away in every breach they've had.  And two, it's cheap.  When a provider is buying them in bulk, credit monitoring costs a few pennies per person when you're buying them 100k at a time.  But, that gets sold to the company that had a breach to provide to its customers for several dollars.  There's a huge amount of money in it, so it keeps getting offered.   I wouldn't tell anyone not to take it, but understand that there's nothing being done there that you cannot reliably do yourself.  Open and read both your bank statements and credit card statements each and every month.  Get your credit reports at least once a year (you're entitled to one per year from each of the three providers for free - go to annualcreditreport.com - not freecreditreport.com where they try to sell you stuff).  Finally, put a credit freeze on your account with Experian, Transunion and Equifax.  This will lock down your credit so that no one can pull it without you removing it via a PIN first.   Then, know that if you get your identity stolen and actually become a victim, there are some great services out there that can take the burden of recovery off of you and get it resolved.

Man, the ELCAN Spectre is a great optic.  It's like mounting your living room window on your rifle.

Can anyone point definitively to when "reparation" language first entered into the conversation? I'm assuming this is a later development, as I can't see it as having gotten any traction in the post-war South.

For the record, I'm in agreement with Rob.  If you think that whites are the only ones with an interest in "preserving" America, then you really need to get out more.  You and reality parted ways sometime around 1955.

All I got from that article was - Thomas Sowell is writing for World News Daily?  Has the man lost so much credibility that it's come to this?  Does he need a paycheck that bad?   I've got a bunch of stuff that I'd love to say on this topic, but I am going to refrain for now so that I don't find myself having to moderate myself.    I'm really of the mind to shut this thread down before it gets started.  But, I'm going to leave it open for now.   Let this serve as your warning.  Bring something intelligent to the conversation or don't participate.

Here you go, Gordon:   http://shop.redxarms.com/75-STAINLESS-STEEL-300-AAC-BLACKOUT-PISTOL-BARREL-75300AAC.htm   It's a shorty, but it looks like they're rolling their own, so I'm guessing they could do about any length.

Let's not let evidence get in the way of our speculation...   We're talking 70 year old rifles, here.  Regardless of how much Obama, Hillary and all the other boogeymen out there might hate the CMP, we're operating with a fixed supply of rifles that's going to run out sooner or later.  They've seen their business change.  A lot of folks today would much rather order online or via email instead of making the drive - so a private company made a business decision that makes sense for their business.  I don't see a conspiracy here.   People probably should hurry up and get one of these great old rifles; CMP supplies are going to be exhausted one day.    But please, do it because of the respect you've got for the old warhorses - not because Obama's going to come take them.

I'd rather have the M3s, but there's nothing wrong with the M2s.  I'm still in unless there's more demand than supply, then feel free to reallocate mine.

Put me down for 10 in a flat rate.  I've yet to wish I had fewer quality magazines.

I think we're talking two different concepts. One certainly has biblical roots. The one in question here, though is an arrangement defined by the state to confer a state endorsed package of benefits (tax status, contract law provisions, survivor benefits, estate planning benefits, insurance benefits, etc...) which don't have a thing to do with church. Assuming you're married, you may have had a ceremony in a church, but you asked the state for permission when you went and got a marriage license. Despite the rhetoric, they're not going to start beating down the doors of your church demanding that you start marrying same-sex couples.

Yep. Anyone who thinks that might work out for us ought to have to spend time in a country that's got a theocratic government. It might work out for you for a while. But, then one day you wake up in the minority. See how it works out then. Our founding fathers had first hand experience with this. They knew better.

Those chicks don't shave, Mac. That's some legislation that I'm just not going to be able to support.

If you look at it from that perspective, I think we've still got a problem - namely that we keep swinging at every pitch. There are real problems out there. Ones that really matter. This isn't one of those, really. But, look at our dialog at the national level. Conservatives are losing traction by spending so many cycles on this instead of talking about the larger issues. Party platforms are being dictated by these tiny "constituencies" that are in reality the people who donate to campaigns and show up to vote in primaries. Couple that with the fact that most folks in the "middle" simply don't care one way or another, and that puts us in a really dangerous place. Add in the fact that the GOP has successfully gerrymandered a lot of these districts to the point that the DNC couldn't rig an election to win in most of them, and you find out that what might seem like a good thing is in fact a bad one. These politicians in these districts, bought by their "constituency" with their moral agenda have zero incentive to negotiate, much less compromise. Their constituents might in fact prefer them walk this whole thing off the cliff. I hope they don't get the chance, but in the meantime I wish we'd keep from getting all lathered up every time they mention it and instead talk about problems that really matter. Oh. Except this is convenient for the GOP leadership, too. Maybe if we keep everybody spun up about this they won't realize we don't have a clue how to address $16 trillion dollars in debt or the stomach to actually make any of the hard choices it'll take to get there.

As to the bigger question of gay marriage.  I simply don't care that much what 'Babylon' chooses to recognize or not recognize.  It doesn't much affect me or the way we raise our family.    That said, I think there's a really important facet of this discussion that is conveniently left out because we would rather use the government as a hammer to mandate our way of thinking as opposed to having to think through the issue on our own.  Mind you, these comments while applicable to anyone, are mostly aimed at my fellow "church-going Americans".   It's easy to talk about "getting out the vote".  It's hard to see that, that person isn't really the boogeyman.   It's easy to talk about "marriage" being between a man and a woman.  It's harder to see that from a tax perspective you and your spouse who are married and file jointly are in fact a special class. And you willingly accept a bunch of other benefits from it, too.   It's easy to be dismissive about "Adam and Steve", and as Christians, fail to see those people as children of God.   It's easy to talk about "condoning deviant behaviors" while failing, again as Christians to see that their sins don't get them any further from God than yours or mine do.   It's very easy to use "holy" sounding language when in reality we dismiss the example of Jesus and how he would treat these people.   Like I said, I don't much care what the government says about this.  I do know how I'll talk to my children about it.  I hope that my example trends towards compassion.

Mark, this post doesn't sit well with me for a couple of reasons.   Let's deal with the question of children, first.  If we're trying to keep marriage out of the hands of the government, then shouldn't that generally extend outward to child welfare, too?  There are a lot of children that could benefit from adoption, both in the US and the world over.  Why throw additional hurdles in the way?  If a private agency is capable of looking out for a child and their well being, surely they should be the judge of whether someone or some couple ought to be able to adopt or not.    I'd guess that you could break it down roughly like you would civil unions/marriage.  Let the government recognize civil unions and find a church that shares your beliefs and is willing to perform a ceremony if you want to get married.  Likewise with adoption, I'm sure there are religiously affiliated agencies that would choose not to place children in gay homes and secular agencies that might.  The problem is plenty large enough to make room for both.  But, I don't want the government dictating who is okay and who isn't just because our view currently happen to be aligned.    It seems to me you have to choose one or the other, and a lot of our problems stem from trying to both have our proverbial cake and eat it at the same time.   Second, I agree that our federal government is far from where the founders intended it, but power is going to try to gain more power - especially in a vacuum.  Our states have ceded their powers to the federal government.  In fact, they gave it away willingly in return for federal money.  This is a huge problem, but we cannot simply say that the federal government doesn't have the rights.  Unfortunately, as all three of our "co-equal" branches of government have grabbed more power, today, they certainly see themselves as having the right.  It would take a long set of court battles to overturn this expanded power base.  This might ought to be where we put our focus.

I sure hope you've got a throwaway email account.  You're signal-to-noise ratio is about to go through the roof.